Comments on: Which parent impregnates a daughter?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:58:48 +0000

The turkey baster thing has already happened.

By: Seth

Seth — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:31:24 +0000

Woman begs, borrows, or steals semen
Woman drugs daughter
Woman uses device to implant semen in daughter
Daughter gets pregnant
Who has impregnated the daughter?
*** It is not probable, but it IS possible ***

By: Oriscus

Oriscus — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:17:42 +0000

I personally support the death penalty for any parent who would shame their daughter enough that she should seek to cross state lines for a clandestine abortion.

But then, I’m a liberal freak.

By: mythago

mythago — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:29:12 +0000

You can just go read the legislation itself for these answers. (A Thomas search will pull up the most recent version, circa 9/26, I believe.)

The current version says that a parent who committed an act of incest can’t sue under the legislation. That means that if Dad gets his daughter pregnant, he can’t sue Auntie for taking Daughter across state lines for an abortion.

The legistlation doesn’t prevent the other parent from suing, though, and it apparently doesn’t address other criminal behavior. So if Mom knew about the incest but did nothing, she can sue Auntie for taking Daughter out of state for an abortion; if Dad sold Daughter to Uncle Bob for crack, Dad may be criminally liable for all kinds of things, but since Dad didn’t commit incest, Dad can still sue.

By: K

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 03:57:55 +0000

I think they said “parent” and meant “parent or guardian,” since “Father” could be construed to being limited to limited term…are we talking biological father, adopted father, custodial father, etc.?

But if you’re going to campaign for the use language and images which clearly and accurately reflects the subject matter, then I would fully support you.

By: John

John — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 03:02:55 +0000

Robin, silly as it sounds, stranger things have happened-Reading the Court page in my local paper, I remain astounded at what people can get up to.
I suppose in the 1960’s the notion of a man being raped by a woman was just as silly.

By: Robin Lionheart

Robin Lionheart — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:44:04 +0000

I suppose when the day comes that a mother impregnates her daughter with a turkey baster, they’ll be ready.

By: L. Cougar

L. Cougar — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:07:53 +0000

I wonder if using the word “father” could leave the bill up to a legal challenge on the basis of discrimination, no matter how far-fetched it seems. Which might hold the entire bill up to greater scrutiny, or at least delay it’s implementation. So the authors of the bill aren’t going to leave that loophole.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:45:50 +0000

Agreed with John here. If the notification statute refers to “parent”, you want to use “parent” to make sure there aren’t any rare cases that can slip through the cracks. I’d actually have drafted it using “child” rather than “daughter” for the same reason - you don’t have to then make a sex vs. gender distinction to make sure transgendered people are covered by the statute.

By: John

John — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 07:56:17 +0000

It’ll be a legal thing. It’s like one of the laws on rape here; it was gendered male in the ’60s, because no-one actually thought females would be able or would do it. Until a (rare) case of it came up, and it emerged oops, the law didn’t cover it. It was made gender neutral pronto, but it’ll just be a bit of legal anal retentiveness. Pass it as a gendered Bill, and who knows-what with science and sperm donors and what-not, in the future a woman might be able to impregnate another woman by some bizarre and icky procedure. It sounds silly, and I don’t seriously think its either possible or probable, but legal drafters have to consider these things. It’s safest to be gender neutral when considering crimes, and I suppose that means you have to be gender neutral all the time, even when it is insane. That’s where inclusive language gets you, Hugo! :-)